Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Federal Administrative Court Leipzig at night 1 (aka).jpg

Federal Administrative Court Leipzig at Night

Reason: Very well done night-shot.

Articles this image appears in: Leipzig
Creator: user:aka

regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support reasons see above —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Does not appear in any articles, and as far as I can tell it has gained nothing from being taken at night. Instead it has lost detail in the shadows and gained those horrible blue lights. --Fir0002 01:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; "I can tell it has gained nothing from being taken at night." I know hat you mean, but it accurately portraits how it looks at night now.--Svetovid (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The blue light in front of the building is awfully distracting. The first thing I thought of when I looked at it was not the building, but a Star Wars lightsaber. Clegs (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it gained the blue lights. They are actually part of the building design now, and they are not visible by day. They might not appeal to your eclectic taste, but them being visible should not be held against the picture, bout in favour. I'm still going neutral here, it is a HDR shot, but I believe slightly more light with non black shadows and non pitch black sky with visible building contours would have helped the picture. --Dschwen 00:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My point is that the blue lights are not part of the building, but a distracting part of the foreground. If you look closely, you'll see that they are on the edge of the sidewalk in the foreground, and have nothing to do with the building. Happy New Year! Clegs (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose does not meet criteria #5. Cacophony (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No it does regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 03:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding it after the fact. Maybe next time you could do that before you nominate it? After all, it dosen't add value to an article if it does not appear in an article. Cheers, Cacophony (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - (including expansion from my original comments)

Is of a high technical standard.
Very nicely done. The blue lights accent the image. Night makes it dynamic and interesting. This is the whole point. It has been pointed out that the top of the dome is out of focus. The top of the dome is IN focus; the statue on the top may be on the edge of the focal plane. Unless this were a photo specifically of that point, how can that .5% of the image be killing the entire image? No, the building from left to right, front to back, is clearly in focus and the statue atop the top of the dome is only arguably out-of-focus (or it's the function of resolution and small area of the image).
Is of high resolution.
3000x1520 I think qualifies. No debate on this point apparently.
Is among Wikipedia's best work.
Don't see many like this often (this is a really subjective criteria, mind you). Too subjective to really be an argued point. This is a "do we like it" question. We do. The photo is fantastic. There's no such thing as a perfect photo.
Has a free license.
Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 - No debate on this point.
Adds value to an article.
The article has many photos, but most are blah, daytime, architectural snapshots (nice ones, mind you). This particular one is very nice and the nighttime aspect adds punch and dramatics to the photo and article. Okay, the image was added afterward, but the point is that it is there now and it adds value to the article. All the other images add minimally, but this one adds dynamics. Someone pointed out that the blue lights detract from the building, but as it has been pointed out, the lights are part of the building, which only reinforces the value of the image in depicting the building.
Is accurate.
Yes. As described above, the lights are a part of the building, not easily seen in daylight. This "criticism" actually lends credence to this as the image is more accurate a representation of the building than a similar image in the daytime.
Has a good caption.
Yes. "This image shows the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig, Germany at night." No debate to this point either.
Is neutral.
Don't see how it could be not neutral in this instance. No debate on this either.
Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation.
Looks good. It is a composite, but not an altered composite, and there has been no debate on this point.

VigilancePrime (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only complaints on this image have been the blue lights, the statue atop the dome, and the so-called tilt. The image is exceptionally well-done. The focus issue is marginal at worst (and non-existant at best), the image is not rotated (the appearance referred to is a function of shooting from the side, and the image is very well-oriented), and the blue lights are a large part of what makes this image so great. It appears as though a lot of the issues are "I don't like it" arguments, and that's fine (because I'm including an "I like it" angle), but the actual criteria, objectively stated, are clearly and easily met. This image is (should be) a gimme for featured status. VigilancePrime (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Those blue lights are just hideous - what were they thinking? What a shame. --jjron (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What does that have to do with the image quality per se?--Svetovid (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But we're not just judging quality - refer to Criterion 1, dot point 3 "...it has good composition and has no highly distracting or obstructing elements." So you're telling me those blue lights aren't 'highly distracting'? (Look, maybe if it was just that one off to the right you could argue it's not highly distracting, but it's that one in the middle that kills it). To me it also fails on Criterion 3, dot point 2, due to the lights. --jjron (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - accurate and high-quality photo.--Svetovid (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blue lights really distract from the architecture and grandeur of the old building. --Shark face 217 06:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The photo shows great detail on the building itself. I think the blue light, along with the perspective of the shot, gives an interesting twist on the building pictures that we see here on FPC. tiZom_(2¢) 10:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The blue lights are a very recent addition. This version shows the building before, and also shows that it's really not very well lit at night. For encyclopedic purposes, a daytime shot would be much better. Creatively speaking, its a really nice shot and the blue contrasts superbly with the warm floodlights, however a long-standing consideration for WP:FP is that creative flair becomes a negative factor if it reduces the enc value overall. This candidate illustrates the reasoning behind that very well. --mikaul^talk 17:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support++ I dont see why the blue lights matter for a featured picture. I think this is a great high-res photo that fully illustrates the building and shows its current state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teque5 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per mikaul.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks tilted clockwise, that or poorly corrected distortion. The top of the dome is OoF. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 22:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the distracting blue light. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per comments above, while the blue lights might not be a pretty design choice, that does not by any definition violate a FP criterion I know of. It is, in fact, specifically denied so. Given that no nigh time picture can be taken showing a global view of the building like that without those poles, I fail to see how they can be held against the image. Circeus (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 04:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]